There have been many calls for a new type of voting system because at elections a party may obtain many votes but no seats. Labour and Liberal also become weakened and we hear talk on the media that perhaps neither party will survive. UKIP I feel we owe a great debt, as they have brought the Referendum and immigration problems to the fore, even the Conservatives would not have had this in their manifesto if UKIP had not been so strong with public support. I considered voting for them but some of their prospective politicians were too “over the top” and the Conservatives were now giving us an option for the Referendum. However, I thank Nick Farage and others in UKIP, even though they did not win many seats, yet they played a significant part in making sure we have a Referendum. I hope he and UKIP continue to educate the UK in the lead up to the Referendum so that we all make the right choice for the country with regard to Europe.
It seems to me that the “Left Wing” and “Right Wing” Politics is not working anymore and Politicians are (or should be) fighting over the “centre ground” which in my definition is the “common sense” ground. They also seem obliged to put forward ideas and ideals in their manifestos which they may not fully agree with, but put them forward in order to be different from the other parties. This is destructive to our society if that is the case, for we do not then follow the sensible route for the country, but social and other “ideals” that do not work or are just “politically correct” or to give another option for the sake of it, but that do not work. Every time Labour comes into power for instance, they always seem to almost bankrupt the country, or have us on a “strike” mode i.e. strikes of some sort ensue. This is because it is an “ideal” they follow of social justice and benefit for all at a fairly high standard of lifestyle (for those on benefit still drink alcohol, smoke, have pets, conceive new children, and are overweight which indicates they are not really in “poverty”) when this cannot be supported in reality because money and jobs do not “grow on trees”.
Unless we have business and entrepreneur’s and others making money and jobs for we who are less able, we cannot have the jobs and a basic social support when needed for those less able, or when any of us hit hard times. The unions supposedly strike for the benefit of the workers and the poor of the community, yet they call strikes at times when the community they wish to help are going on holiday, or when a company is about to go out of business or need to make changes to keep a business or service up to date and relevant, and by striking risk putting the whole business or service at risk.
The Media, all the Politicians and the Unions speak of the “rights” of the “deserving poor”, but in England we are not really “poor” even when on benefit. We usually have the basics, shelter, even though it may be basic B & B, rent is paid and most bills and a little money in our pocket even if not working. The difficulty arises because everyone is being “politically correct” saying the "poor" have a "right" to more luxuries than what I have listed above. Where is the accountability of the “poor” in such situations? Smoking, alcohol and pets are a luxury, as are tatoos and professionally manicured nails, yet somehow some of those on benefit have all these things but then allow themselves to be evicted for non payment of rent.
I also get the impression that some Politicians "represent" their constituents by asking them what they want or need, their constituents obviously ask for better benefit, more housing and jobs, and then vote for the party offering this, even though there is no realistic way of providing this except by borrowing or more demands on the tax payer to pay more benefit or services. Labour and probably the SNP if they get into power again, will come off austeriy measures, pay out more benefit, allow more immigrants and we will be in dire straights again in 5 years.
How can we offer more if all the world is suffering economically and should be in “austerity” measures, which is really the only sensible budgeting so that we do not live beyond our means, as Greece has done. I have recently heard that Greece has only been paying 13% VAT, when we in the UK pay 20%, plus they seem to have had very early retirement and good pensions. I have also heard that if a government job for a driver or similar was required, then there would be about 50 employees registered and paid for that ONE job, from Government taxes. This is corruption and/or mismanagement. Greece may well be responsible for its own troubles and the citizens now used to such policies and low costs and benefits, thinking this is what they can expect from life because it has been promoted worldwide that we "citizens" have certain “rights” we can claim at the expense of anothers ability and/or hard work. At present Greece wants massive bailouts from the EU. I have discovered rather late in life perhaps, that some people without sincerity, take what they want when they can, because they do not care, others take what they want when they can, because they think it is their "right", due to what they have been taught by family or society. Thirty years ago I worked in a small business centre and there was a company promoting jobs which also included information and assistance on claiming benefit and housing in the UK, they charged a fee for their service, cynically ustilising the UK benefit system. At that time it was a few, now it is is many doing such things.
I do not have a degree and do not know much about politics and economics, but when Jack Straw on behalf of the Labour Government unnecessarily allowed the Eastern European countries early access to the UK before we needed to, even I could have told him we would have too many coming over. Ten years later he admits that was a mistake, this is not good enough from someone I thought was better qualified than I, such major repercussions from that decision, because of the numbers and the affect on our society.
I also saw a programme about the O2 dome when it was midway in construction and a decision by the Cabinet of a Labour Government was made, not to go ahead with it. Shortly afterwards Tony Blair overruled that decision of his Cabinet and went ahead with the O2 Project. This shocked me, I thought all such decisions were made collectively. Yet David Cameron and/or his cabinet also overruled the advice of his civil servants that the Charity Kids Company should not receive any more money, then 7 days later the Charity is closed. In both situations I assume they are doing what they feel is best, but I always assumed too.. that major decisions were collective to some extent. I thought that was the best way to achieve the wisest outcome, discuss and decide, but perhaps that is naive when there so many decisions to make.
Because of the above major errors of political decisions I think we should work towards A new subject in Schools for ALL children on Philosophy of Life and basic Politics and Economics so that ALL children grow up with a basic understanding of how the Government and world economies work and the Politics, so that they can vote with responsibility, not out of lack of knowledge and guesswork. Perhaps we should make voting compulsory, be it postal, internet or in person and a small fine imposed if a vote is not made. An abstention option can be offered on the form for those who are truly unsure, or object to voting. Fines can go towards financing the parties for the next election. Perhaps only those who have passed the exam satisfactorily at school or evening class as adults can vote on the deeper wider level, and if we changed the system to a "Polity" (see below) so that certain decisions were made collectively by more individuals over the internet. Although even this system could have its drawbacks as the "many" may still vote for "non austerity" for instance, as the Greek society and the Scottish Parliament and First Minister would do, and we might still end up Bankrupt, so there has to be decisions made with knowledge, not guesswork and gut feeling necessarily. Perhaps there would also have to be an age as well as education restriction on wider voting. There has been talking of lowering the voting age to 16, yet it is only now at 60 I begin to appreciate the intricacies of govermnent and economics, most 16 and even 30 year olds do not know what they are voting foreven. Chancellors of the Exchequer even disagree on the whether we should be in or out of Europe. In such a situation, perhaps it does not matter which way the vote goes, it could work either way, they of all people should know it there was definitely one decision that was best.
I have read in “The Politics Book” by DK, on Page 43 it states the following: that "Aristotle examined the different “regimes of government”, their strengths and weaknesses. He asked 2 questions: who rules and on whose behalf do they rule? He observed that they were 3 types of rule: by a single person, by a select few, or by many. That rule could be either on behalf of the population as a whole, which Aristotle considered true or good government, or the self interest of the ruler or ruling class, a defective form of Government. He then identified 6 “species” of rule, which come in pairs. Monarchy is rule by an individual on behalf of all; rule by an individual in his own interests, or Tyranny, which is corrupted monarchy. Rule by Aristocracy (which to the Greeks meant rule by the best, rather than rule by hereditary noble families) is rule by the few for the good of all; rule by a self interested few, or Oligarchy, is its corrupted form. Finally, Polity is rule by the many for the benefit of all, Aristotle saw Democracy as the corrupted form of this form of rule, as in practice it entails ruling on behalf of the many, rather than by ruling by every single individual. Aristotle argued that self interest (the desire to benefit oneself) is inherent in the defective forms of government leads to inequality and injustice. This translates into instability, which threatens the role of the state (or government) and its ability to encourage virtuous living."
I have read in other books and have heard recently in the USA government, that minority groups can block progress of laws being passed. We have also seen in Egypt recently where a man was elected from the Muslim Brotherhood (who some view as a terrorist group) by democratic vote, but the people did not have a satisfactory alternative to him, so they voted for him, but then he did not follow what the people wanted him to do to give them the legitimate freedoms they wanted. The world was then in a quandary because he was voted in by legal vote, and the Muslim Brotherhood also used this as a reason that he and they remain in power. Eventually by peaceful massive demonstration the Army took control of the situation. The success of democracy then, does not end with an individual or party being voted in, they then need to be a sincere, trustworthy individual and party, who listens and acts on behalf of the people, and do not follow their own agenda. Even Hitler was voted in by democratic vote who then took over other government positions and those related decisions and appointed people with similar goals as himself. Although a lot of the people were with him at first because the nation was in a difficult economic state and he appeared to be making life better.
The democratic system also has to have in place a system that does not allow minority groups to take over the best interest of the majority, as even in the USA at times. We are also experiencing this now with the Scottish MP's vote, who seek the “best” for Scotland but also with very “left wing” ideas of “no austerity” and seek to hinder the rest of the UK for the sake of making a point and forcing the hand of a Government that has the majority vote in the UK. The UK Govermment won the election with the mandate that further cuts and austerity would come. The SNP act for the "best" for Scotland, not for the whole of the UK, yet Scotland takes more than the Scottish share of UK taxes, i.e. they rely on what England pays in as well what the Scottish pay in, and out of this they give free prescriptions and University grants to all. England cannot afford this for the remainder of the UK. They even offer free university fees to Europeans applying and accepted yet this is not offered to England and Northern Ireland. Yet the UK is paying into their tax system and we are also part of the European Union. This is very unjust and manipulating the system for the benefit of Scotland at the expense of UK tax payers.
If Scotland destroys the whole of the UK unity, simply to make a "point", there will be nothing for anyone for they will destroy us and themselves in the process. They will do to the UK what Labour always seem to do when in office, they will follow left wing ideas, giving money out without balancing the books. They also want to be supported by the UK Banking system and Sterling which is not in the interest of the UK and makes us vulnerable to their debts and banking mistakes I believe, and it is not Scotland being truly "independant" either. We all have to think of the "whole" worldwide community, what is expedient for all. The Scottish people have voted. If there is still some thought of separation then let them have another referundum and put an end to it. If they want to be free they of course that is their right but not taking parts of the UK as well that may cripple the Uk have things go wrong for them, particularly when the have non austerity policy.
For all those who call for “no austerity” where do you think the money will come from if we do not pay our debts off? Do they want us to be like Greece? Money does not grow on trees, as we all know, how can we call for the “rights” of more benefit or higher wages for everyone, particularly when some people are not budgeting or making an effort to help themselves.
Scotland now has a very young MP of 19 years old, also calling for "no austerity" she also does not put forward ideas on how to pay off the debts we have, but only to support the "poor" and pay more benefit. The UK economy is only stronger than Greece because the current goverment IS trying to put matters right, and we all feel it. We have to be realistic. If Labour or the SNP put us back to spending, we will be in trouble again. It is like the NHS, it is terrible that a child or person may die, but to spend thousands of pounds for a short extended life span of a few weeks, it is not practical. Or to preserve a premature child to a life of misery on life support machines. It is not practical nor kind, parents of such children often end up asking the society to care for the child when they decide they cannot cope after all. We have to be realistic.
Please note that I have been a nurse and also nursed my Mother with terminal cancer when I was 23. I have nursed children in handicapped childrens homes and in hospital. We have to be realistic and kind and until that "power" or "glory" of God comes to us and ALL society has to pay their part and be part of the "team". In the meantime we also seek God and that "Glory" or power he says will be with us.
Jesus turned 4 loaves and 2 fishes to feed 5000, if God would do this now, we would not have a problem. Why does He not do it? Because we are petulant, abusive, unkind, unjust, demanding and always trying to score points perhaps? Because we cut our "brothers" throat and blow him up in God's name? Can we change this? Worldwide?
A Purer Religion and A New Politics? As well as putting the Jewish Christian and Muslim beliefs "in order" I suggest the following for Politics also. I am not sure how and if it could work, and it may not be possible to do it and so that we also remain with a stable and sensible Government. Yet bear in mind also what Aristotle has said about Democracy. I think it would also take away the time wasting exercise when MP’s are in accusative debate of what the other party has done, and what their party would do, to try and “win points” directed to the public over the media, then they do not do it any better anyway, because each are trying to “tow the party line”. They sometimes accuse each other over the media of some "word" or comment made, "how awful, derogatory or foolish it was, and not fit for a Prime Minister or MP to use such language", then leave the main important issue in discussion unresolved and undiscussed. For instance, the Prime Minister used the term "a swarm of immigrants" at Calais, and the Labour shadow minister and others attack him on the word "swarm", yet say very little on how to deal with the very difficult issue we now have with the immigrants flooding Kent and the UK.
If we removed the affliation to a party and party "line", and all politicians were independant, perhaps EVERY politician could focus on the problems in question and be part of a willing "team" in the Government to resolve the issue, and not waste the energy and time on scoring party points. The world has a lot of problems, and I have assumed MP's are more accomplished and able than most, having been elected in the first place. But if we elect a 19 year old to Parliament I am not sure if that is enough experience in life to be useful, anyone can say "spend on the poor and increase benefits", but if it bankrupts the country what is the point of that. How many of these politicians or celebrities calling for non austerity and more taxes on the rich have generated business or jobs or income for themselves? If we do not have such people there will be no jobs AT ALL for the any of us and then no benefits for the poor either. Schools have to teach the link between business, jobs, tax and benefits or they will grow up thinking it just appears out of nowhere and is a right they they can demand. These children then become demanding adults without and sense of responsibility or understanding of how this income is generated and strike to the detriment of everyone including the business and services that keep us ALL stable and functioning.
Let there just be sensible debate for, or against a decision, or law, then let each MP cast their independent vote for what they TRULY believe is the SENSIBLE route for the UK, bearing in mind the issues mentioned above, i.e. that if we have insufficient tax money coming in, and we keep the benefit system as it is, there will soon be nothing even for the truly vulnerable. Already child support is being cut back for ALL families, even the English, because we have allowed too much for those that abuse it and constantly are expanding the population by immigration. If we allow unfettered immigration and social benefit and NHS access, the UK also could end up like India or Africa which have little or no such support for its citizens.
We should not take for granted what our ancestors, the WW2 generation who suffered MUCH, have set up for us. Let us consider their sacrifice and loss. For those that have not been brought up hearing of it, as I did from my parents, I speak of the immigrants or children who have been born to my generation, they need to be aware that the benefit system is not a "right" that should be claimed without gratitude and with the attitude that one can still conceive children whilst claiming it, and expect the state to pay for the parents and the children. If we are on benefit then we cannot afford a child. It is not fair on that child either, for you are providing no home or financial security. Family planning perhaps should also be part of the education for secondary school children from 11 or 13 years onwards for this reason, and obligatory for those on benefit, be they English and immigrants, male or female, of whatever religious persuasion.
Voting for an MP. I would prefer that each MP presented himself as an “independent” loosely attaching him or herself to a set of Manifesto promises or aims set up by each party, putting forward as well, his own new or independent ideas if desired. He/She can claim a Manifesto promise of any party, so they will not be bound by either Manifesto in its entirity, and if he/she gets elected they can vote according to their conscience and beliefs as to what would be best for the country. The parties can still “whip” them if need be (speak to each member to get them to vote a particular way), but no MP is obliged to follow one particular party promise unless he has promised to do so while he was electioneering, or, unless there may be severe disruption to Government.
Voting for a Prime Minister: Any MP who feels he/she is fit for Prime Minister status can put themselves forward for this and the whole country votes for the Prime Minister they want at the same time as the election, OR, after the election, the MPS choose and vote from those who have put themselves forward for this. He can then choose his cabinet from any of the MP’s elected from any party persuasion. This way we obtain the best of the MP’s available in any Government and no one is bound by “ideals” they have to keep to due party affliation. It may be possible for those who fund any of the Parties, that these funds are pooled into one fund and distributed to each MP standing for his area. Either that, or nominal public funding is provided so that each potential MP has the same amount to promote his ideas together with his ability to generate volunteers and support. If they add his/her own funds, or funds from others they have generated then that is down to their success in life and future potential to run the country.
Benefit Claimants & Asylum Seekers:Thirty years ago as far I was aware, Asylum seekers were one or two every few years and they were people genuinely seeking political asylum. Now mostly are economic seekers, a better life, or an easier life, for they have heard they will get a home and benefit. Some may now be refugees from war.
England in particular, but also Europe and other Countries like Australia, are like lifeboats on the Titanic, there are 1500 people likely to drown and maybe only lifeboats for 600 people. The UK care system is already failing, if we allow more and more, it is like everyone trying to get into the lifeboats and then everyone drowns because there are too many people and the lifeboats all overturn. England does not have the space for any more people when taking into consideration future natural population growth. We are a small island and from recent figures I have heard we will soon have the same population as France or Germany yet with significantly smaller land space.
In addition to the above we already have an NHS crisis each year with not enough beds, not enough school places and not enough homes. Therefore let not our Politicians, Media, Unions, celebrities, imply it is “demand” or a “right” that the “people” have that all these benefits that can be paid out AND even more, and then also say “no austerity” measures. If they are going to say these things, then let them put forward a proposal to resolve these issues we have and the extra money needed. What I see now benefit being withdrawn from all, because we are obliged by Europe to take in immigrants and provide the same to them. But they do not pay for these benefits we do.
It is very “politically correct” and apparently “compassionate” to say we must house the vulnerable and pay a good wage, and take in all the Asylum seekers, but we cannot afford it as we once did and on the scale that is required. This idealistic “politically correct” rhetoric is causing those people supposedly “poor” to make aggressive demands and it has become too extensive to provide and is not financially viable now when so many are abusing the system. If someone on benefit is not paying their bills but have pets, smoke, drink alcohol, have a new child whilst on benefit or out of work, or are excessively overweight (unless due to a medical condition), then they are abusing it and not helping themselves or playing their part. They are not using common sense nor self discipline.
On a recent “Benefits” programme, a young couple living with a relative who was also not working, the girl thought she was pregnant and admitted she was not taking contraception. This is irresponsible and it is probably because there is still a belief, and perhaps a correct one, that if you have a child they will get a council property and benefit. We need to provide information in schools where they find a different vision for their lives early on in life, 13 onwards, so that they find a goal and vision for themselves of being free, with aims other than having a child. It’s a vicious circle that will lead to poverty for the child and hard work for the parents, which they will realise as soon as the baby arrives and for which the tax payer then must pay for. As for the family that has 19 children, some others may have less, but still too many 4 or 5, and even Asylum seekers and others on benefit have more children than acceptable when they are not providing for themselves, they may have 4 or 5 children already, yet still have more. Perhaps it should be law that any child conceived whilst on benefit will lose ALL their other benefits, or that compulsory adoption is required, which may not be so good for the Mother, but it is certainly better for the child, and it is the children that are the priority. There is great demand for newly born babies I believe. If young people AND adults knew this would happen then they will take family planning precautions more seriously. Some purposely become pregnant, knowing they have no regular partner or income and then expect parents or more usually the government to help out. The people crying out for compassion are not always compassionate themselves.
We have to remember also with regard to Asylum seekers, that they seem to have money to pay their way to travel as far as England, and do not stop to settle at a closer country. So they are not that desperate, either that, or the other E.U. countries encourage them to move on to the UK because they also do not want the difficulties and cost they bring. These people cannot be that poor if they can pay their way, nor that compassionate, if they are willing to leave their families to face the war while they try and escape. In such a situation, I would not want to leave my family knowing they may die alone. I would want to stay and fight with them, or die with them. I could not leave them and go to safety myself never knowing what might happen to those I left behind. Remember too, that people like my Father went away for 4 years to fight the war. Asylum seekers want to survive I understand that, but my Fathers generation had to sacrifice themselves for what we have now in world. Why do they not fight for their country and peace, or put pressure on their leaders to reach an agreement even if they have to capitilate to an extent of they are tired of the disruption. Their faith is what is causing the war, is this faith being correctly interpreted? I do not think it is, as Christian and Jewish faith is also being misinterpreted.
Taking children to Europe by boat or lorry is not really putting children first, though they may not be aware of the troubles they will encounter. However, the people we are taking in are not so “compassionate” themselves and we are taking in people who are very “tough” emotionally and out to survive regardless of what they do to get to the UK, or when they arrive in the UK. We have had Marble Arch in London with people camping there and causing a lot of problems. I recently went to Hull and a little public garden Square had a tent in it, if everyone starts doing this, what then. Now and again there are people sleeping out along the Thames roads. This is just the beginning if we do not get it under control.
If all politicians are like Jack Straw or similar, i.e no better than I, then hear what I have to say as well and consider and discuss it and as a team and with everyone’s input, knowledge and concern we will come to a decision that works for us all. For the problem is that one, or a few persons, make a decision and they do not have full knowledge for every situation. Although I had thought that the government did work as a "team", to a degree perhaps, but not always.
Social Care and NHS Funding. If the “people” and those with "left wing" policies are sincere in their claims for the “poor” in the community, then instead of “calling” over the media for the Government, which is the tax payer, to pay more to social care and benefit, let them pay, with others, their excess income, be it large or small, into a new “side” fund to be set up, either as a charity, (or directly to the Government), and the funds then passed to the Government to use for the NHS or social care. Along the lines of Acts 2 and 4 below. The tax and benefit system in the UK is already working along the lines of Acts 2 and 4 and this could just be supplemented voluntarily by individuals and it may perhaps "plug the deficit gap" for the services we currently have.
This new charity, coupled with a more honourable attitude to be developed in society, so as to reduce abuse of the system, be it Companies avoiding tax, or Benefit claimants claiming when they need not, or being irresponsibly. The Government to provide details each year as to the totals received and amounts given to each department. Perhaps there can also be a means where those on "benefit" can pay into the fund. Those who are grateful for the guaranteed stable financial support, but unable to earn more due to health, ability or opportunity issues. Who do not want to destabilise their "benefit" by declaring odd amounts or short term work they obtain until it is permanent and sufficient to live on without benefit, and may not even take such work for fear of destabilising their benefit income. Such short term work creates excessive administration costs for the government anyway, and more debt and worry for those on the benefit if it is stopped and not reinstated quickly when the work ends, causing debt and even loss of a home if rent cannot not paid. So until they are earning sufficient to live on, then let them deposit ALL excess earnings over their benefit allowance into the Charity account and retain the receipt that they have done this, as protection against fraud or abuse of the system. If it worked it could be extended to other countries, the poorer ones also, and donations from the "rich" 10% of the world population to pay larger amounts into such countries if they felt so inclined.
Acts 2: 42-47 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. 44And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Acts 4: 30-35 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus. 31And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.32And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Foreign AID & Refugees I have heard that much of foreign AID is lost through corruption. Perhaps it should be considered that NO AID is provided unless an international team of administrators are allowed into that country to allow political, economic and administration advice and assistance. These should not be highly paid IMF type people but those trained for such a task.
Asylum seeking I think should now be abolished for it is unsustainable for any country and 99% are probably refugees from war or economic. My Father gave 4 years of his life in El Alemain, many died in the war as we know. People have suffered for the peace and prosperity and benefits we have. He worked 6 and a half days a week after the war until 65. A nation has to stand and fight for their own country as well, to establish it, not run away leaving their compatriots to die and expecting others to foot the bill in their new lifestyle abroad, often with numerous children. The UK and the "West" are also "richer" because we have less children, with family planning there is no need for such poverty. This applies to the English claimants as well.
As mentioned above, money paid towards AID should be used to send teams to the countries to assist in setting up systems to improve the country,and training of those in that country. If the leaders refuse then the AID is not given.
In an evangelical church in 1988 which I attended for a period, a church of many cultures, I was told by some of the congregation, that it was deemed "kind" by their society to leave a child in the UK "care" tsystem though the parent may return home. Some were driving without licence or insurance and tax and in council homes they should not have been in.
Police & Criminal Activity. I cannot understand why the Police are villified by politcians, the media, and most of society, when a man is shot or killed when they have had a gun on them, or a gun was found nearby a scene when policemen has shot a man. What are the Police supposed to do in such a situation? There mere fact a gun is found nearby or on their person in such a sitaution surely should place all blame on the man shot who had the gun, be it real or toy, how are the Police supposed to know whether they will use it or not? If a citizen is armed in such a way they should have no protection from the law. They have already breached the law having been found in criminal activity, then with a gun, why should a policeman risk his life and that of his colleagues in such a situation? Why should society, family and friends ask the Police for more than this, and come out in riots in favour of someone who have been caught like this? Have an investigation perhaps to double check that someone had not been shot or killed while in custody by negligence or other unprofessional motive certainly. Yet even those who die while being restrained, if they have been arrogant, unhelpful, are caught in criminal actvity, they are already at fault surely? If I am stopped by the Police, who are there to protect me at risk of their own life, with the authority of the state, then I must submit to it. It is "Yes Sir" "No Sir" and immediate obedience to their request. If I have done nothing, then there is nothing untoward that will occur to me. But I see on TV in such situations, in the USA for instance, there is outright defiance at such a request. Why? What is a policman supposed to do? He has a job to do, he asks for us to get out of the car and we refuse for instance? Why should we refuse? Or if they run away. What has the person been doing? I would not do that. Yet society seems to think that the Police are in the wrong when they get agitated in such situations. Yet to rebelliously refuse for no reason, as I saw on TV, is being like a petulant child and if the one being apprehended suffers harm because of it, they are not entirely innocent. I do not say cruelty or death after such an incident is right, but if we respond politely and obediently, no harm would come to us. Why do people react in such a difficult arrogant manner? Because they see it on TV dramas perhaps, and think that is the way to behave? Or is it their own culture/family in which they live? The Police are only human and overall there to protect us. If we are playing our part, but are difficult, rude, rebellious run away, if apprehended in some way, we are NOT entirely innocent of whatever might occur to us.
Charities. I cannot understand also why some charities having raised substantial funds from the public, for instance for the Boxing Day Tsunami and then years later a great deal of that money is still unused sitting in a bank account. There needs to be some investigation into these long delays. They need the money ASAP not years later surely.
Catholic Church/Family Planning: Until Pope Benedict retired from his position as Pope in 2013 I believe Popes normally stayed in office until death, before this it was only in 1415 AD/CE a Pope retired. The fact that he has retired instead of remaining until death and the new Pope Francis is also talking of retiring at an appropriate time, implies to me that they are beginning to see that their belief system has to be modified for practical reasons. If they have been wrong on this important issue, the Catholic Church should also consider thay are wrong on other even more important issues, for instance the "Trinity" and the directive to believers that Contraception should not be used, the Contraceptive Pill in particular. This directive I believe hinders the third world particularly, as well as other poor countries or families. The Pill does not destroy a conceived embryo, thereby destroying a life, but stops the conception and before potential for "life" and a child is created. This and some other forms of Contraception do this and there is no reason therefore for a church order that contraception should not be allowed.
With regard to the Trinity teaching, and that Jesus is God as well as the Son, these teachings are not correct (please see A Certain Myth) and cause both Jews and Muslims to turn from the Gospel. These teachings are confusing, even to Christians, no one understands the Trinity really, and the Muslims themselves bring up the Bible verses that contradict these teachings. The Catholic and other Christian Churches need to look into this directive made so very long ago (325AD/CE) and dissolve all these "accepted" ancient directives, as must the Muslims and Jews look afresh at what may be true for they too teach unsupported "doctrines" that contradict what the Bible and Qur'an say.
Please see A Certain Myth as a beginning of this reassessment. It is based on 60 years of life and study and trying to "obey" these old accepted teachings, finding they are not correct and reading the books myself and some of the history behind them and finally finding some "order" and consistency in the "Message" of, or about God, as provided in A Certain Myth.